11/11/16

Jer
1:1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who
were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:

Jer
1:2 to whom the word of Yahweh came in the days of Josiah the son of
Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.

Jer
1:3 It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of
Judah, to the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the son of
Josiah, king of Judah, to the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in
the fifth month.

Jer
1:4 Now the word of Yahweh came to me, saying,

Jer
1:5 Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came
forth out of the womb I sanctified you; I have appointed you a
prophet to the nations.

Jer
1:6 Then said I, Ah, Lord Yahweh! behold, I don't know how to speak;
for I am a child.

Jer
1:7 But Yahweh said to me, Don't say, I am a child; for to whoever I
shall send you, you shall go, and whatever I shall command you, you
shall speak.

Jer
1:8 Don't be afraid because of them; for I am with you to deliver
you, says Yahweh.

Jer
1:9 Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Yahweh
said to me, Behold, I have put my words in your mouth:

Jer
1:10 behold, I have this day set you over the nations and over the
kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to
overthrow, to build and to plant.

Jer
1:11 Moreover the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, Jeremiah, what
see you? I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.

Jer
1:12 Then said Yahweh to me, You have well seen: for I watch over my
word to perform it.

Jer
1:13 The word of Yahweh came to me the second time, saying, What see
you? I said, I see a boiling caldron; and its face is from the north.

Jer
1:14 Then Yahweh said to me, Out of the north evil shall break forth
on all the inhabitants of the land.

Jer
1:15 For, behold, I will call all the families of the kingdoms of
the north, says Yahweh; and they shall come, and they shall set
everyone his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, and
against all its walls all around, and against all the cities of
Judah.

Jer
1:16 I will utter my judgments against them touching all their
wickedness, in that they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to
other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands.

Jer
1:17 You therefore gird up your waist, and arise, and speak to them
all that I command you: don't be dismayed at them, lest I dismay you
before them.

Jer
1:18 For, behold, I have made you this day a fortified city, and an
iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the
kings of Judah, against its princes, against its priests, and against
the people of the land.

Jer
1:19 They shall fight against you; but they shall not prevail
against you: for I am with you, says Yahweh, to deliver you.

Jer
2:1 The word of Yahweh came to me, saying,

Jer
2:2 Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says Yahweh,
I remember for you the kindness of your youth, the love of your
weddings; how you went after me in the wilderness, in a land that was
not sown.

Jer
2:3 Israel was
holiness to Yahweh, the first fruits of his increase: all who devour
him shall be held guilty; evil shall come on them, says Yahweh.

Jer
2:4 Hear you the word of Yahweh, O house of Jacob, and all the
families of the house of Israel:

Jer
2:5 thus says Yahweh, What unrighteousness have your fathers found
in me, that they have gone far from me, and have walked after vanity,
and are become vain?

Jer
2:6 Neither said they, Where is Yahweh who brought us up out of the
land of Egypt, who led us through the wilderness, through a land of
deserts and of pits, through a land of drought and of the shadow of
death, through a land that none passed through, and where no man
lived?

Jer
2:7 I brought you into a plentiful land, to eat its fruit and its
goodness; but when you entered, you defiled my land, and made my
heritage an abomination.

Jer
2:8 The priests didn't say, Where is Yahweh? and those who handle
the law didn't know me: the rulers also transgressed against me, and
the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not
profit.

Jer
2:9 Therefore I will yet contend with you, says Yahweh, and with
your children's children will I contend.

Jer
2:10 For pass over to the islands of Kittim, and see; and send to
Kedar, and consider diligently; and see if there has been such a
thing.

Jer
2:11 Has a nation changed its
gods, which yet are no gods? but my people have changed their glory
for that which does not profit.

Jer
2:12 Be astonished, you heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be
you very desolate, says Yahweh.

Jer
2:13 For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me,
the spring of living waters, and cut them out cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water.

Jer
2:14 Is Israel a servant? is he a native-born slave?
why is he become a prey?

Jer
2:15 The young lions have roared on him, and yelled; and they have
made his land waste: his cities are burned up, without inhabitant.

Jer
2:16 The children also of Memphis and Tahpanhes have broken the
crown of your head.

Jer
2:17 Haven't you procured this to yourself, in that you have
forsaken Yahweh your God, when he led you by the way?

Jer
2:18 Now what have you to do in the way to Egypt, to drink the
waters of the Shihor? or what have you to do in the way to Assyria,
to drink the waters of the River?

Jer
2:19 Your own wickedness shall correct you, and your backsliding
shall reprove you: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing
and a bitter, that you have forsaken Yahweh your God, and that my
fear is not in you, says the Lord, Yahweh of Armies.

Jer
2:20 For of old time I have broken your yoke, and burst your bonds;
and you said, I will not serve; for on every high hill and under
every green tree you did bow yourself, playing the prostitute.

Jer
2:21 Yet I had planted you a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how
then are you turned into the degenerate branches of a foreign vine to
me?

Jer
2:22 For though you wash yourself with lye, and use much soap, yet
your iniquity is marked before me, says the Lord Yahweh.

Jer
2:23 How can you say, I am not defiled, I have not gone after the
Baals? see your way in the valley, know what you have done: you
are a swift dromedary traversing her
ways;

Jer
2:24 a wild donkey used to the wilderness, that snuffs up the wind
in her desire; in her occasion who can turn her away? all those who
seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her.

Jer
2:25 Withhold your foot from being unshod, and your throat from
thirst: but you said, It is in vain; no, for I have loved strangers,
and after them will I go.

Jer
2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of
Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests,
and their prophets;

Jer
2:27 who tell a stock, You are my father; and to a stone, You have
brought me forth: for they have turned their back to me, and not
their face; but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise,
and save us.

Jer
2:28 But where are your gods that you have made you? let them arise,
if they can save you in the time of your trouble: for according to
the number of your cities are your gods, Judah.

Jer
2:29 Why will you contend with me? you all have transgressed against
me, says Yahweh.

Jer
2:30 In vain have I struck your children; they received no
correction: your own sword has devoured your prophets, like a
destroying lion.

Jer
2:31 Generation, see the word of Yahweh. Have I been a wilderness to
Israel? or a land of thick darkness? why say my people, We are broken
loose; we will come no more to you?

Jer
2:32 Can a virgin forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet
my people have forgotten me days without number.

Jer
2:33 How trimmest you your way to seek love! therefore even the
wicked women have you taught your ways.

Jer
2:34 Also in your skirts is found the blood of the souls of the
innocent poor: you did not find them breaking in; but it is because
of all these things.

Jer
2:35 Yet you said, I am innocent; surely his anger is turned away
from me. Behold, I will enter into judgment with you, because you
say, I have not sinned.

Jer
2:36 Why go you about so much to change your way? you shall be
ashamed of Egypt also, as you were ashamed of Assyria.

Jer
2:37 From there also you shall go forth, with your hands on your
head: for Yahweh has rejected those in whom you trust, and you shall
not prosper with them.

Jer
3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and
become another man's, will he return to her again? Won't that land be
greatly polluted? But you have played the prostitute with many
lovers; yet return again to me, says Yahweh.

Jer
3:2 Lift up your eyes to the bare heights, and see; where have you
not been lain with? By the ways have you sat for them, as an Arabian
in the wilderness; and you have polluted the land with your
prostitution and with your wickedness.

Jer
3:3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been no
latter rain; yet you have a prostitute's forehead, you refused to be
ashamed.

Jer
3:4 Will you not from this time cry to me, My Father, you are the
guide of my youth?

Jer
3:5 Will he retain his anger
forever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, you have spoken and have
done evil things, and have had your way.

Jer
3:6 Moreover Yahweh said to me in the days of Josiah the king, Have
you seen that which backsliding Israel has done? she is gone up on
every high mountain and under every green tree, and there has played
the prostitute.

Jer
3:7 I said after she had done all these things, She will return to
me; but she didn't return: and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

Jer
3:8 I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had
committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of
divorce, yet treacherous Judah, her sister, didn't fear; but she also
went and played the prostitute.

Jer
3:9 It happened through the lightness of her prostitution, that the
land was polluted, and she committed adultery with stones and with
stocks.

Jer
3:10 Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not returned
to me with her whole heart, but only in pretense, says Yahweh.

Jer
3:11 Yahweh said to me, Backsliding Israel has shown herself more
righteous than treacherous Judah.

Jer
3:12 Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return,
you backsliding Israel, says Yahweh; I will not look in anger on you;
for I am merciful, says Yahweh, I will not keep anger
forever.

Jer
3:13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed
against Yahweh your God, and have scattered your ways to the
strangers under every green tree, and you have not obeyed my voice,
says Yahweh.

Jer
3:14 Return, backsliding children, says Yahweh; for I am a husband
to you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I
will bring you to Zion:

Jer
3:15 and I will give you shepherds according to my heart, who shall
feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jer
3:16 It shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in
the land, in those days, says Yahweh, they shall say no more, The ark
of the covenant of Yahweh; neither shall it come to mind; neither
shall they remember it; neither shall they miss it; neither shall it
be made any more.

Jer
3:17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Yahweh;
and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of Yahweh,
to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness
of their evil heart.

Jer
3:18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of
Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to
the land that I gave for an inheritance to your fathers.

Jer
3:19 But I said, How I will put you among the children, and give you
a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the armies of the nations! and
I said, You shall call me My Father, and shall not turn away from
following me.

Jer
3:20 Surely as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, so
have you dealt treacherously with me, house of Israel, says Yahweh.

Jer
3:21 A voice is heard on the bare heights, the weeping and
the petitions of the children of Israel; because they have perverted
their way, they have forgotten Yahweh their God.

Jer
3:22 Return, you backsliding children, I will heal your backsliding.
Behold, we are come to you; for you are Yahweh our God.

Jer
3:23 Truly in vain is the help that is
looked for from the hills, the tumult on
the mountains: truly in Yahweh our God is the salvation of Israel.

Jer
3:24 But the shameful thing has devoured the labor of our fathers
from our youth, their flocks and their herds, their sons and their
daughters.

Jer
3:25 Let us lie down in our shame, and let our confusion cover us;
for we have sinned against Yahweh our God, we and our fathers, from
our youth even to this day; and we have not obeyed the voice of
Yahweh our God.

Jer
4:1 If you will return, Israel, says Yahweh, if you will return to
me, and if you will put away your abominations out of my sight; then
you shall not be removed;

Jer
4:2 and you shall swear, As Yahweh lives, in truth, in justice, and
in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and
in him shall they glory.

Jer
4:3 For thus says Yahweh to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem, Break
up your fallow ground, and don't sow among thorns.

Jer
4:4 Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh, and take away the foreskins of
your heart, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my
wrath go forth like fire, and burn so that none can quench it,
because of the evil of your doings.

Jer
4:5 Declare you in Judah, and publish in Jerusalem; and say, Blow
you the trumpet in the land: cry aloud and say, Assemble yourselves,
and let us go into the fortified cities.

Jer
4:6 Set up a standard toward Zion: flee for safety, don't stay; for
I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.

Jer
4:7 A lion is gone up from his thicket, and a destroyer of nations;
he is on his way, he is gone forth from his place, to make your land
desolate, that your cities be laid waste, without inhabitant.

Jer
4:8 For this gird you with sackcloth, lament and wail; for the
fierce anger of Yahweh hasn't turned back from us.

Jer
4:9 It shall happen at that day, says Yahweh, that the heart of the
king shall perish, and the heart of the princes; and the priests
shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder.

Jer
4:10 Then said I, Ah, Lord Yahweh! surely you have greatly deceived
this people and Jerusalem, saying, You shall have peace; whereas the
sword reaches to the life.

Jer
4:11 At that time shall it be said to this people and to Jerusalem,
A hot wind from the bare heights in the wilderness toward the
daughter of my people, not to winnow, nor to cleanse;

Jer
4:12 a full wind from these shall come for me: now will I also utter
judgments against them.

Jer
4:13 Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall
be as the whirlwind: his horses are
swifter than eagles. Woe to us! for we are ruined.

Jer
4:14 Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be
saved. How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?

Jer
4:15 For a voice declares from Dan, and publishes evil from the
hills of Ephraim:

Jer
4:16 make you mention to the nations; behold, publish against
Jerusalem, that
watchers come from a far country, and give out their voice against
the cities of Judah.

Jer
4:17 As keepers of a field are they against her all around, because
she has been rebellious against me, says Yahweh.

Jer
4:18 Your way and your doings have procured these things to you;
this is your wickedness; for it is bitter, for it reaches to your
heart.

Jer
4:19 My anguish, my anguish! I am pained at my very heart; my heart
is disquieted in me; I can't hold my peace; because you have heard, O
my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.

Jer
4:20 Destruction on destruction is cried; for the whole land is laid
waste: suddenly are my tents destroyed, and
my curtains in a moment.

Jer
4:21 How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the
trumpet?

Jer
4:22 For my people are foolish, they don't know me; they are foolish
children, and they have no understanding; they are wise to do evil,
but to do good they have no knowledge.

Jer
4:23 I saw the earth, and, behold, it was waste and void; and the
heavens, and they had no light.

Jer
4:24 I saw the mountains, and behold, they trembled, and all the
hills moved back and forth.

Jer
4:25 I saw, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the
sky had fled.

Jer
4:26 I saw, and behold, the fruitful field was a wilderness, and all
its cities were broken down at the presence of Yahweh, and
before his fierce anger.

Jer
4:27 For thus says Yahweh, The whole land shall be a desolation; yet
will I not make a full end.

Jer
4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black;
because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and I have not
repented, neither will I turn back from it.

Jer
4:29 Every city flees for the noise of the horsemen and archers;
they go into the thickets, and climb up on the rocks: every city is
forsaken, and not a man dwells therein.

Jer
4:30 You, when you are made desolate, what will you do? Though you
clothe yourself with scarlet, though you deck you with ornaments of
gold, though you enlarge your eyes with paint, in vain do you make
yourself beautiful; your
lovers despise you, they seek your life.

Jer
4:31 For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, the anguish
as of her who brings forth her first child, the voice of the daughter
of Zion, who gasps for breath, who spreads her hands, saying,
Woe is me now! for my soul faints before the murderers.

Nov. 11

Titus 1

Tit 1:1
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to
the faith of God's chosen ones, and the knowledge of the truth which
is according to godliness,

Tit 1:2
in hope of eternal life, which God, who can't lie, promised before
time began;

Tit 1:3
but in his own time revealed his word in the message with which I was
entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior;

Tit 1:4
to Titus, my true child according to a common faith: Grace, mercy,
and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tit 1:5 I
left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the
things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I
directed you;

Tit 1:6
if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who
believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.

Tit 1:7
For the overseer must be blameless, as God's steward; not
self-pleasing, not easily angered, not given to wine, not violent,
not greedy for dishonest gain;

Tit 1:8
but given to hospitality, as a lover of good, sober minded, fair,
holy, self-controlled;

Tit 1:9
holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that
he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict those
who contradict him.

Tit 1:10
For there are also many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers,
especially those of the circumcision,

Tit 1:11
whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses,
teaching things which they ought not, for dishonest gain's sake.

Tit 1:12
One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always
liars, evil beasts, and idle gluttons."

Tit 1:13
This testimony is true. For this cause, reprove them sharply, that
they may be sound in the faith,

Tit 1:14
not paying attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who
turn away from the truth.

Tit 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and
unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their
conscience are defiled.

Tit 1:16
They profess that they know God, but by their works they deny him,
being abominable, disobedient, and unfit for any good work.

Nov. 12

Titus 2

Tit 2:1
But say the things which fit sound doctrine,

Tit 2:2
that older men should be temperate, sensible, sober minded, sound in
faith, in love, and in patience:

Tit 2:3
and that older women likewise be reverent in behavior, not slanderers
nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good;

Tit 2:4
that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love
their children,

Tit 2:5
to be sober minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in
subjection to their own husbands, that God's word may not be
blasphemed.

Tit 2:6
Likewise, exhort the younger men to be sober minded;

Tit 2:7
in all things showing yourself an example of good works; in your
teaching showing integrity, seriousness, incorruptibility,

Tit 2:8
and soundness of speech that can't be condemned; that he who opposes
you may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say about us.

Tit 2:9
Exhort servants to be in subjection to their own masters, and to be
well-pleasing in all things; not contradicting;

Tit 2:10
not stealing, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the
doctrine of God, our Savior, in all things.

Tit 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Tit 2:12
instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly
lusts, we would live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present
world;

Tit 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great
God and Savior, Jesus Christ;

Tit 2:14
who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for
good works.

Tit 2:15
Say these things and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no
man despise you.

Nov. 13

Titus 3

Tit 3:1
Remind them to be in subjection to rulers and to authorities, to be
obedient, to be ready for every good work,

Tit 3:2
to speak evil of no one, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing
all humility toward all men.

Tit 3:3
For we were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various
lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating
one another.

Tit 3:4
But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward mankind
appeared,

Tit 3:5
not by works of righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according
to his mercy, he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Tit 3:6
whom he poured out on us richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior;

Tit 3:7
that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according
to the hope of eternal life.

Tit 3:8
This saying is faithful, and concerning these things I desire that
you affirm confidently, so that those who have believed God may be
careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable
to men;

Tit 3:9
but shun foolish questionings, genealogies, strife, and disputes
about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Tit 3:10
Avoid a factious man after a first and second warning;

Tit 3:11
knowing that such a one is perverted, and sins, being self-condemned.

Tit 3:12
When I send Artemas to you, or Tychicus, be diligent to come to me to
Nicopolis, for I have determined to winter there.

Tit 3:13
Send Zenas, the lawyer, and Apollos on their journey speedily, that
nothing may be lacking for them.

Tit 3:14
Let our people also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses,
that they may not be unfruitful.

Tit 3:15
All who are with me greet you. Greet those who love us in faith.
Grace be with you all. Amen.

Jesus taught, “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in
heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be
done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9, 10).

We need to pray this because God's will is not done on earth as
it is in heaven. Earth is a hotbed of rebellion. Satan is making his last
futile stand against God.

In the Revelation, John writes: “And war broke out in heaven:
Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and
his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for
them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that
serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole
world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with
him. Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, 'Now salvation, and
strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ
have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before
our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and
they did not love their lives to the death. Therefore rejoice, O
heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the
earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great
wrath, because he knows that he has a short time'” (Revelation 12:7-
12).

Jesus came to enforce the will of God and vanquish Satan by first
saving those who believe and then, when He comes again, by “taking
vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not
obey the gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Christians participate in this battle to overcome evil. When the
seventy returned from preaching, Jesus said: “I saw Satan fall like
lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18).

Paul wrote to the saints at Rome: “And the God of peace will
crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).

God wants us to pray: “Rejoice always,pray without ceasing, in
everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for
you” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). We pray that Christians might stand
firm in the will of God: “Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of
Christ, greets you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that
you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God” (Colossians
4:12).

When we pray that God's will be done on earth, we must of
course begin with ourselves. Like David, we pray, “Teach me to do
Your will” (Psalm 143:10).

Man's will conflicts with the will of God.

This is obviously true of those who outright reject the will of God.
But it is also a problem for those who want to do God's will! Paul
warns: “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;
and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the
things that you wish” (Galatians 5:16, 17).

Although Jesus foretold His crucifixion, He did not want to die!
“He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began
to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. Then He said to them, 'My soul
is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with
Me.' He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying,
'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless,
not as I will, but as You will'” (Matthew 26:37-39).

It is not wrong to be
sorrowful and distressed when we face suffering and death, even
though we know it is, or may be, the will of God. Nor is it wrong to
pray for deliverance. Yet, we must qualify our prayer, as Jesus did: “O
My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your
will be done” (Matthew 26:42).

Jesus warned: “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24).

Jesus told Peter: “Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were
younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when
you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you
and carry you where you do not wish” (John 21:18). Peter was willing
to die for Christ, but he did not wish to die.

Later Peter wrote: “For it is better, if it is the will of God, to
suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once
for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being
put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:17,
18).

“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm
yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the
flesh has ceased from sin,that he no longer should live the rest of his
time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God” (1 Peter
4:1, 2). “Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God
commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator” (1
Peter 4:19).

Time and chance happen to them all.

The Scriptures do not teach that everything is a direct result of
God's will. Many things happen by chance. Solomon wrote: “I
returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor
the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of
understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen
to them all. For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a
cruel net, like birds caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared
in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them” (Ecclesiastes 9:11,
12).

Although God intervenes to ensure that His ultimate purposes
prevail, He often allows things to run their course, but with the
promise that “all things work together for good to those who love
God” (Romans 8:28). God will take care of his children, no matter
what happens to them. Jesus said: “And do not fear those who kill the
body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to
destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a
copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your
Father's will.But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.Do not
fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew
10:28-31).

One man whom Jesus healed, showed great insight in this: “And
it happened when He was in a certain city, that behold, a man who
was full of leprosy saw Jesus; and he fell on his face and implored
Him, saying, 'Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.' Then
He put out His hand and touched him, saying, 'I am willing; be
cleansed.' Immediately the leprosy left him” (Luke 5:12, 13). This
man knew Jesus could heal him. Yet he also understood that it might
not be according to His will. In this case it was, but in many cases it is
not. As Jesus told the Jews: “And many lepers were in Israel in the
time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except
Naaman the Syrian” (Luke 4:27).

Paul recounts his own experience: “And lest I should be exalted
above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the
flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be
exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord
three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in
weakness'” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).

How do we pray according to the will of God?

We must have the attitude of Jesus: “Not as I will, but as You
will” (Matthew 26:39).

To the extent that God has revealed His will in Scripture, we can
pray with full assurance that we will receive what He has promised:
“Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask
anything according to His will, He hears us” (1 John 5:14).

In everyday matters, however, we often do not know God's will.
We pray according to our best insight with the humble realization that
we do not know what to ask, but also with confidence in this promise:
“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know
what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He
who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is,
because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of
God” (Romans 8:26, 27).

What have we learned from the Scriptures about prayer and
the will of God?

We are to pray that God's will might be done and that Christians
might stand firm in the will of God. Realizing that man's will conflicts
with the will of God, we pray that God's will be done rather than our
own. It is not wrong to pray for deliverance but we must understand
that it can be God's will that we suffer, even if we do not understand
why. God is not directly responsible for all that happens. Time and
chance happen to them all. Just because God can heal someone, does
not mean that it is according to His will. For those who love God, all
things work together for good. We can pray with full assurance that
we will receive what God has promised in Scripture. In everyday
affairs, however, we depend on the Holy Spirit to intercede for us
according to the will of God. Let us pray for God's will to be done.
Amen.
Roy Davison

At What Hour was Jesus Crucified?

One
allegation leveled by Bible critics is the difference that exists
between Mark and John in their reporting of the hour of the crucifixion
(McKinsey, 2000, pp. 295-296; Wells, 2013). Mark records that the Lord
was crucified at the third hour (15:25), while John records that Jesus
was tried before Pilate at the sixth hour (19:14)—which would seem to be
after the time Mark says Jesus was crucified. The harmonization of this
surface difference is quite simple and further underscores the
sophistication of Bible inspiration.
Living as we do in the 21st century, we fail to remember or
recognize that time has not always been reckoned the way it is today
worldwide. We are able to calculate quickly the time anywhere in the
world. For example, if it is 9:00 a.m. in Montgomery, Alabama (which is
on Central time), it is 10:00 a.m. in New York City (which is on Eastern
time), 3:00 p.m. in London, and 12:00 midnight in Sydney, Australia.
Not so in antiquity. The ancients used a variety of systems by which
they reckoned time.
A careful study of the biblical text reveals the fact that John (who
wrote near the end of the first century, several years after the
writings of the synoptic writers, away from Palestine, and addressing an
eclectic, Hellenistic audience) based his calculations on Roman civil time. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the other hand, computed their allusions to days and hours according to Jewish time
(cf. Smith, 1869, 2:1102; Robertson, 1922, p. 285; Lockhart, 1901, p.
28; Geisler and Howe, 1992, p. 376; Brewer, 1941, pp. 330-331; McGarvey,
1892, 2:181-182).
In light of these facts, read the context of John’s allusion to the “sixth hour”:

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat
down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in
Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour.
And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” But they cried out, “Away
with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I
crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but
Caesar!” Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took
Jesus and led Him away (John 19:13-16, emp. added).

John does not actually refer to the hour of the crucifixion, but only
to the proceedings leading up to the crucifixion, specifically, the
general timeframe when Pilate handed Jesus over to the Roman guards to
commence the execution procedures. At this point, there yet remained the
torturous, time-consuming journey to the place of execution. These
events began to occur “about” 6:00 a.m.
Mark’s account reads as follows:

Then they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of
Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by,
to bear His cross. And they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is
translated, Place of a Skull. Then they gave Him wine mingled with
myrrh to drink, but He did not take it. And when they crucified Him,
they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every
man should take. Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him (Mark 15:21-25, emp. added).

Using Jewish reckoning, Mark’s “third hour” is 9:00 a.m.—three hours after John’s “sixth hour” (see also Miller, 2007).
Ample time is provided for the events leading up to the actual
crucifixion, the proper sequence is preserved, and the Bible’s pristine
historicity is vindicated.
It is truly tragic that skeptics are so bent on discovering
discrepancies in inspired writ that they manifest such extreme
prejudice. An honest, unbiased individual will take the time to examine
the details of Scripture and extend a fair hearing to its record—the
same fairness that the skeptic desires for himself. Despite the ongoing
assault of those who view the Bible with disdain—an assault that has
spanned two millennia—the Bible remains unscathed in its claim to be of
divine origin.

Deconstructing the Establishment Clause

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P.
auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from
Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence
from South Texas College of Law. A former Briefing Attorney of The
First Court of Appeals, his current practice focuses on litigation at
the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts.]

One wonders whether the Founding Fathers ever envisioned the
intense...at times, malevolent...discourse these simple, instructive
words would evoke throughout the land for over 200 years. Should “In God
We Trust” be removed from our currency? Should the opening of Court not
begin with an incantation to God to “save the United States and this
Honorable Court”? Indeed, should reference to an awareness of God be
stricken from the federal Constitutional oath of office? Or from the
revered Declaration of Independence? Where does the injunction of the
First Amendment lead us? (Doe v. Tangipahoa..., 2009).

I was in my car listening to a talk radio program where the subject of
the day was the “separation of church and State.” The callers’ opinions
were all across the board from the far left to the far right and
everything in between. One gentleman finally called in and had the nerve
to assert that the First Amendment nowhere contains the phrase
“separation of church and State.” And then the fireworks began. Caller
after caller (including the host) blasted this neophyte for claiming the
First Amendment did not contain this purported phrase.
In reality, the First Amendment has two religious clauses. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Bill of Rights,
1789, emp. added). The first clause is known as the Establishment
Clause, and the second is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Not only is
the phrase “separation of church and State” conspicuously absent from
this short sentence we call the First Amendment, but it is not anywhere
to be found in the entire Constitution of the United States (nor in any law passed by Congress).

THE ORIGIN OF “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”

Why is it, then, that so many people mistakenly, yet sincerely, believe
that this phrase is somewhere found within the First Amendment? More
importantly, why do so many believe that this phrase means that the
government can have no involvement in religion or recognition of God in
any form whatsoever? The origin of this phrase can be traced back to an
1802 letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist
Association. The Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote a
letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing concern over their lack
of state constitutional protection of religious liberty and against a
government establishment of religion. Specifically, the Danbury Baptists
stated in their letter to President Jefferson, “Our Sentiments are
uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times
and places a matter between God and individuals—That no man ought to
suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious
Opinions—That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no
further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor” (“Danbury
Baptist...,” 1801). The Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious
majority might establish a state religion at the expense of the
liberties of religious minorities.
Thomas Jefferson responded by letter dated January 1, 1802. He agreed
with the Danbury Baptists’ views on religious liberty and the separation
of civil government from involvement with religious doctrine and
practice. Jefferson wrote: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”
(“Jefferson’s Letter...,” 1802, emp. added). Jefferson’s statement
regarding “a wall of separation between Church & State” was a mere
recognition that the government would not endorse or back a single
religious group to the detriment of other Christian sects. However, the
use of that phrase today bears no relation to what President Jefferson
meant when he penned those words in 1802.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”

Many take the view that the Framers of the First Amendment intended for
the government to be completely detached from any religious activity
and neutral in all religious matters. In other words, they equate the
phrase “separation of church and State” with absolute refusal by the
government not only to engage in any religious activity, but also to
passively allow any religious activity in the public sphere. This
interpretation is far removed from the context or meaning of the phrase
coined by Jefferson in 1802, much less the First Amendment.
To understand what the First Amendment does and does not mean, it would
be helpful to look to the writings and religious/political sentiments
expressed by the author and primary proponent of the First Amendment.
James Madison submitted the original draft of the First Amendment to
Congress, and Thomas Jefferson was one of the key supporters of the
First Amendment.
It is clear from Madison’s own writings that he was concerned with the
union of church and State as was prevalent in Europe at that time. The
First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from joining
forces with a particular religious organization as a government-endorsed
religion. This can be seen in the original proposed draft of the First
Amendment submitted by Madison. “The civil rights of none shall be
abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed” (Wallace v. Jaffree,
1985, emp. added). “[Madison’s] original language ‘nor shall any
national religion be established’ obviously does not conform to the
‘wall of separation’ between church and State idea which latter-day
commentators have ascribed to him” (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985).
Ironically, when the original draft of the First Amendment was later
revised and debated in the House on August 15, 1789, Representative
Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised
version, because it might have a tendency “to abolish religion
altogether” (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985). However, Madison stated
during this debate that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be,
that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a
pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to
which they would compel others to conform” (Annals of Congress, 1789, 1:758). While the Supreme Court has never adopted this interpretation of the Establishment Clause, this is the exact meaning articulated by its own author, James Madison. After reviewing this same historical context of the Establishment Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded:

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison’s thinking, as
reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the
Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national
religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not
see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between
religion and irreligion (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985).

Moreover, James Madison was a religious man who strongly believed that
all public officials and governmental leaders should publicly profess
their belief in Christianity:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in
favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational
and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful
departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to
declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way (“Madison Letter...,” 1773, emp. added).

Madison was also one of the drafters who passed the Virginia
Constitution, which carries the phrase, “It is the mutual duty of all to
practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other” (The Proceedings of...,
1776, p. 103). Simply put, Madison was a strong believer that
governmental leaders, legislators, and even legislation should recognize
and espouse submission to Christ.
In his first inaugural address, James Madison recognized that the
destiny and prosperity of a nation are directly linked to the blessings
and guidance given by God.

In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed,
next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the
guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates
the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously
dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address
our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications
and best hopes for the future (Madison, 1809).

In other words, Madison subscribed to the position that religion should
have a place in the role of government. Moreover, Madison expressed a
clear belief that the fate of a government was intertwined with its
dependence upon and relationship with God.
Thomas Jefferson was also outspoken and clear in his opposition to a
church-sponsored religion that superimposed its will on the people.
Jefferson stated that he was unequivocally opposed to the government
endorsing a state or national religion, much like the system that so
many of our Founding Fathers left behind in England. “I am for freedom
of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency
of one sect over another” (Jefferson, 1799). Jefferson was especially
opposed to Roman Catholicism and any manifestation of entanglement of
church and State where the church assumes the role of civil government.
“But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the
Jewish religion [i.e., Jesus—KC], before his
principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special
servants [i.e., Roman Catholicism, for which Jefferson had little
tolerance], and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and
aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State” (Jefferson, 1810).
Jefferson was not an enemy of religion; rather, he embraced and
promoted religion. In his first inaugural address, Jefferson, like
Madison, linked national prosperity to a national dependence on God and
religion:

Let us, then, ...enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed,
and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty,
truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and
adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves
that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness
hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a
happy and a prosperous people? (Jefferson, 1801).

In his second inaugural address, Jefferson made similar statements, but with a clearer endorsement of the God of the Bible:

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who
led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and
planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts
of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper
years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join
with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your
servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that
whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you
the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations (Jefferson, 1805).

Simply put, Jefferson publically called upon the God of the Israelites
and the God of the Bible, and likewise called upon the citizenry of this
country to pray to that same God. This is clearly not the wall of
separation that so many have misconstrued from Jefferson’s letter to the
Danbury Baptists. Jefferson did not state we should all go home and
privately pray to the supreme being of our choice. Rather, Jefferson
used the office of the President of these United States to direct this
nation to call upon the God of the Bible in prayer to beseech the
blessings and guidance of the one true God. Whatever that “wall of
separation” may be, it is certainly not what so many scholars and
citizens presume it to mean today.
Interestingly, at about this same time in history when the First
Amendment was ratified (December 15, 1791), the United States government
was engaged in numerous acts that many would presume to be
unconstitutional today under a contemporary interpretation of the First
Amendment. However, these governmental actions simply demonstrate that
Congress did not intend for the First Amendment to be a literal wall of
separation between church and State.
The Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress in 1789, provided
that “[r]e­li­gion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged” (1789, 1:52). Like Madison and
Jefferson in their inaugural addresses, Congress also drew a direct link
between religion and government and recognizing that government and
proper education cannot stand without religion and morality.
On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the final
version of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, Representative
Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking the President to issue a
Thanksgiving Day Proclamation to “recommend to the people of the United
States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by
acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of
Almighty God” (Annals of Congress, 1789, 1:949). This resolution was passed on September 25, 1789. Within two weeks, George Washington responded:

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of
November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the
service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of
all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all
unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind
care and protection of the people of this country previous to their
becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable
interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the
late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which
we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we
have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our
safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately
instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are
blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful
knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which
He has been pleased to confer upon us (Washington, 1789).

Likewise, in President Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he declared:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should
labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.... The mere
politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish
them (1796, emp. added).

President Washington made clear that a government cannot exist without
“religion and morality.” These events and actions of the government,
near the time the Establishment Clause was enacted, demonstrate that the First Amendment was not designed to extract all religion from the government.
To the contrary, the political leaders of the day, the Framers,
congressmen, and even the Presidents surrounding the time the
Establishment Clause was passed, were clear advocates for governmental
endorsement of religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
Contrast the language and endorsement of religion from Washington,
Madison, and Jefferson (and nearly every President that followed) with
the state of the First Amendment today. Presidents Washington, Madison,
and Jefferson used the federal office of the President to persuade the
people to submit to the moral guidelines of the Bible and pray to the
God of the Bible. Compare that with the United States Supreme Court
which held in 1985 that a public school could not allow a moment of
silence for students to pray to the supreme being of their choice (Wallace v. Jaffree,
1985). What has happened in our national history that we have devolved
from a point in time where our highest ranking national leader could
actively promote prayer and submission to the God of the Bible, but
today schools cannot passively even allow a moment of silence at the
start of the day? As Justice Rehnquist stated in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree:
“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a
mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the
Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s
misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years” (1985).

MAKING A LANDFILL OUT OF A MOLE-HILL

From this simple phrase, “separation of church and State,” much has
been presumed and contorted to satisfy the trends and leanings of our
culture. When a straightforward application of the First Amendment does
not reach the desired result, obscure and complicated tests are
fashioned to bewilder and lead to a conclusion that unassuming and
sober-minded people would never reach. A multi-pronged and amorphous
test can allow anyone to reach whatever conclusion they desire. This
dilemma is especially true when looking at the judicial application of
the Establishment Clause in the last 50 years.
Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has fashioned several
tests when scrutinizing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
There is much debate about whether all these tests are still viable,
whether one test overrules another, or whether the tests are merely
fact-specific as to their application. One thing is clear: these tests do not reflect the sentiment of the Founding Fathers and the states that drafted, supported, and passed this amendment into law.
It is no surprise that media sources, entertainers, academia, and the
government have veered further to the left, and grown more liberal and
tolerant in the arena of morality. Unfortunately, courts have likewise
followed the same path, reflecting the same liberal trends we see in
every other facet of contemporary culture. While many who misinterpret
the First Amendment clamor for freedom of religion, they have actually traveled down a path toward freedom from religion, which eventually results in hostility toward
religion. Likewise, courts’ interpretations of the Establishment Clause
have moved in a direction that is more offensive and antagonistic
toward religion (or, at a minimum, allows others to superimpose
irreligion over religion).
This simple language known as the Establishment Clause has spawned a
flurry of judicially created tests and paradigms that further confuse
and muddy the waters of the religious/political landscape. Rather than
providing a reasoned interpretation leading to predictable results,
these tests serve as the springboard to allow courts to manipulate the
outcome of a case when applying the Establishment Clause—an amendment
whose meaning was once clear and obvious. However, when a test only
serves to further confuse and create more questions than it answers, its
usefulness is short-lived, and its purpose is suspect at best.

THE LEMON TEST

The first Establishment Clause test created by the United States
Supreme Court is a three-part analysis often referred to as the Lemon test. The Lemon test derives its name from the 1971 case styled Lemon v. Kurtzman,
in which the Court ruled that a state program providing aid to
religious elementary and secondary schools violated the Establishment
Clause (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Under the Lemon test, a court must (1) determine whether the law or government action in question has a bona fide secular
purpose; (2) determine whether the state action has the primary effect
of advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) consider whether the action
excessively entangles religion and government. These criteria are
sometimes referred to respectively as the (1) “effects” prong, (2) the
“purpose” prong, and (3) the “entanglement” prong. There is a lack of
consensus as to how this test is to be applied. Are courts required to
satisfy all three prongs, or do they merely balance these factors? Are
all elements needed, or are only some needed, and if so, which elements
are required and which are discretionary? Moreover, there is a question
as to whether the Lemon test is still good law today, or has it
been effectively overruled by the many other tests subsequently created
by the United States Supreme Court.

LEMON WITH A TWIST

In 1997, the United States Supreme Court appeared to modify the Lemon test in Agostini v. Felton. The Court combined the last two elements of the Lemon test, using only the purpose prong and a modified version of the effects prong (Agostini v. Felton, 1997). The Agostini Court
delineated three principal criteria to determine whether government
action has the primary effect of advancing religion: (1) government
indoctrination, (2) defining the recipients of government benefits based
on religion, and (3) excessive entanglement between government and
religion (1997). In other words, we started with a three-pronged test
which has now been modified into a two-pronged test by integrating two
of the original prongs and adding a new three-part inquiry to help
explain the new prong. Anyone confused yet? But the tests do not stop
here.

THE COERCION TEST

The “coercion test” owes its genesis to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissent in County of Allegheny v. ACLU.
Under the coercion test, the government violates the Establishment
Clause if it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would
tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or
participate in religion against their will (County of Allegheny v. ACLU,
1989). What would or would not coerce a person is the subject of great
debate among scholars and judges, and is clearly a highly subjective
standard. However, the coercion test is more strictly applied when
involving grades K through 12. In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme
Court observed that “there are heightened concerns with protecting
freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary
and secondary public schools” (1992). However, Lee v. Weisman
also illustrates the subjectivity and lack of predictability when
applying the coercion test. In that case, Justice Kennedy wrote the
majority opinion, and Justice Scalia wrote a dissent. Both justices are
professed devout Catholics and former altar boys. Both applied the same
coercion test and came to opposite results: Justice Kennedy found that
the prayer at issue in that case violated the Establishment Clause,
while Justice Scalia found that the same prayer did not violate the
Establishment Clause (1992). Given this lack of clarity, it seems only
judicially natural that another ambiguous test should be crafted to
further confuse and bewilder the legal landscape regarding the
Establishment Clause.

THE ENDORSEMENT TEST

Under Justice Sandra Day O’­Connor’s “endorsement test,” government
action violates the Establishment Clause if it amounts to an
“endorsement of religion” (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984). Under the
endorsement test, government action or legislation is invalid if it
creates a perception in the mind of a “reasonable observer” that the
government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. Justice
O’Connor wrote: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government from
making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s
standing in the political community” (1984). A person is coerced under
the coercion test “when the government conveys ‘a message to
non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political
community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are
insiders, favored members of the political community’” (1984). The
endorsement test is often applied when the government is actively
expressing itself, such as graduation prayers, religious signs on
government property, and religion in school curriculum. As expected,
there is considerable disagreement as to what constitutes a “reasonable
observer” under the endorsement test. Apparently, the reasonable
observer is whatever the judge decides this hypothetical person to be.
As such, the reasonable observer will vary from judge to judge. However,
does the reasonable observer vary based on the jurisdiction? For
example, the “reasonable observer” in Muscle Shoals, Alabama will be
quite different from the “reasonable observer” in San Francisco,
California. Moreover, on what basis is the decision made that the
observer in Muscle Shoals is unreasonable, other than the superimposed,
yet subjective, opinion of a judge who unilaterally decides that to be
the case? With more questions and more unresolved issues, surely another
test or two is called for.

NEUTRALITY

The concept of neutrality in Establishment Clause decisions requires
that the government neither be an ally nor an adversary of religion.
This analysis (not so much a formal test as a relaxed analysis) is often
applied in cases involving funding or some form of aid given to
religious organizations or schools (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002; Mitchell v. Helms, 2000).
The focus in this approach is an inquiry into the individual’s or
institution’s control over the funds and equal treatment between
religious and non-religious groups.

THE FABRIC OF AMERICA TEST

This test, if it can, in fact, be called a “test,” originates from the case of Marsh v. Chambers.
After observing the extensive history of government-paid chaplains and
legislative prayer, the United States Supreme Court concluded: “In light
of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there
can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with
prayer has become part of the fabric of our society” (Marsh v. Chambers,
1983). It is disputed as to whether this is actually a test or, rather,
a mere anomaly in Supreme Court jurisprudence, or a unique application
of one of the other Establishment Clause tests. Nevertheless, the United
States Supreme Court held that prayer to open the Nebraska Legislative
Session was not unconstitutional because of its long history. As such,
the Court ruled that this practice was a part of the fabric of America
and, hence, did not violate the Establishment Clause (1983). According
to the logic of Marsh v. Chambers, if a practice was instituted
a long time ago, the initiators of this practice must have had a
secular or non-religious purpose in mind, but if the practice is more
recent, the instigators clearly had a religious purpose in mind. This
amorphous and backwards approach would presume that Americans are
becoming more and more religious, in spite of every secular indicator to
the contrary.

MUCH LEARNING IS DRIVING YOU MAD!

At this point in our analysis, the words of Festus come to mind, when
he shouted, “Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning is driving you
mad!” (Acts 26:24). While Paul was clearly not insane, but was speaking
words that were reasonable and true (vs. 25), “reason” and “truth” are
not the words that come to mind when surveying the dizzying array of
Establishment Clause tests that courts have concocted to reflect the
leanings and trends of our contemporary culture. While sifting through
all this madness—these tests, multiple elements, sub-elements, and new
tests—it now becomes clear how we have digressed from a simple,
straightforward Establishment Clause with a clear original purpose and
history, and how we now find ourselves living in an age where the
government has not only sterilized itself from all Christian religion,
but is even hostile and adverse toward Christianity. Scholarly
smokescreens, guised in complex and multifarious tests created over an
extended period of time, hope to eventually erase history and overrule
the original intent of constitutional language.
It is important to know the many tests that courts have contrived in an
effort to further estrange and remove religion from our government,
communities, schools, and way of life. We should be familiar with these
tests so that we can combat those who try to use them to justify their
anti-religious views. We should combat them with the historical context
of our Founding Fathers, even the authors of the First Amendment itself.
Without this knowledge, some people may even be convinced that phrases
like “separation of church and State” are actually found somewhere in
the pages of our Constitution. Rewriting history is a deceptive
and popular way to persuade people. While it is obviously inconsistent
and insincere to close one’s eyes to reality and history, it is not
without precedent. As George Orwell described it:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all
records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became
the truth. “Who controls the past” ran the Party slogan, “controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past” (1949, Part 1,
Chapter 3).

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State (1941).

We should be aware of the historical context and proper meaning of the
First Amendment. We should also be aware of the alleged “arguments” and
“legal tests” that have mutated over the years, allowing courts to
confuse and delude people into an interpretation and application of the
First Amendment that would be unrecognizable to its framers.